From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jan  9 01:47:38 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id CA89F16A4CE; Fri,  9 Jan 2004 01:47:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.enyo.de (mail.enyo.de [212.9.189.167])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 94BB343D5C; Fri,  9 Jan 2004 01:47:37 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from fw@deneb.enyo.de)
Received: (debugging) helo=deneb.enyo.de ip=212.9.189.171 name=deneb.enyo.de
Received: from deneb.enyo.de ([212.9.189.171])
	by mail.enyo.de with esmtp id 1AetFG-000835-VF;
	Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:47:58 +0100
Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.30)
	id 1AetEt-0001Uf-19; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:47:35 +0100
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:47:35 +0100
To: Tim Robbins <tjr@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20040109094734.GA5565@deneb.enyo.de>
References: <20040108220703.GA19764@deneb.enyo.de>
	<3FFE7644.2020402@freebsd.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3FFE7644.2020402@freebsd.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: nullfs on 5.1
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:47:39 -0000

Tim Robbins wrote:

> One major potential deadlock has been fixed since the release of 5.1. If 
> you find a reproducible way of deadlocking nullfs on  5.2 or a -current 
> snapshot less than 6 months old, submit a bug report.

Thanks, I'll try to build RELENG_5_2.

> >Is nullfs essentially unsuported, or is it just broken?  What's the
> >status of unionfs (the manpage is rather discouraging).
> >
> > 
> >
> Nullfs is unsupported, but works well except for a few outstanding bugs 
> (e.g. accessing some kinds of special files on the lower layer through 
> the upper layer causes a panic).

So I should be safe if I copy /dev?  Good to know.